On Friday, October 14, 2011 01:03:40 David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Hans Schillstrom wrote:
>
> > > > Hello,
> > > > I got this when I was testing a VLAN patch i.e. using Dave Millers net-next from today.
> > > > When doing this on a single core i686 I got the warning every time,
> > > > however ifenslave is not hanging it's just a warning
> > > > Have not been testing this on a multicore jet.
> > > >
> > > > There is no warnings with a 3.0.4 kernel.
> > > >
> > > > Is this a known warning ?
> > > >
> > > > ~ # ifenslave bond0 eth1 eth2
> > > >
> > > > =============================================
> > > > [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
> > > > 3.1.0-rc9+ #3
> > > > ---------------------------------------------
> > > > ifenslave/749 is trying to acquire lock:
> > > > (&(&parent->list_lock)->rlock){-.-...}, at: [<c14234a0>] cache_flusharray+0x41/0xdb
> > > >
> > > > but task is already holding lock:
> > > > (&(&parent->list_lock)->rlock){-.-...}, at: [<c14234a0>] cache_flusharray+0x41/0xdb
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hmm, the only candidate that I can see that may have caused this is
> > > 83835b3d9aec ("slab, lockdep: Annotate slab -> rcu -> debug_object ->
> > > slab"). Could you try reverting that patch in your local tree and seeing
> > > if it helps?
> > >
> >
> > That was not our candidate ...
> > i.e. same results
> >
>
> Ok, I think this may be related to what Sitsofe reported in the "lockdep
> recursive locking detected" thread on LKML (see
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=131805699106560).
>
> Peter and Christoph hypothesized that 056c62418cc6 ("slab: fix lockdep
> warnings") may not have had full coverage when setting lockdep classes for
> kmem_list3 locks that may be called inside of each other because of
> off-slab metadata.
>
> I think it's safe to say there is no deadlock possibility here or we would
> have seen it since 2006 and this is just a matter of lockdep annotation
> that needs to be done. So don't worry too much about the warning even
> though I know it's annoying and it suppresses future lockdep output (even
> more annoying!).
I have not seen any deadlock, and so far I've got hundreds of this warnings.
>
> I'm not sure if there's a patch to address that yet, I think one was in
> the works. If not, I'll take a look at rewriting that lockdep annotation.
>
If you want me to do some more testing, I keep the setup for a couple of month.
Thanks
Hans
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>